Robotic Coverage Path Planning for Ultrasonic Inspection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Results section provides an evaluation of four different geometries (only by using the proposed method). Why do these results are not compared to any other inspection method?, please justify it or complete Table 1 by adding coverage-percent values achieved by any other standard method.
The following paper is missed in the References.
"An integrated robotic work cell for highly automated ultrasonic inspection of complex CFRP parts"
Klaus Schlachter, Sebastian Zambal and Christian Eitzinger
Sampe Journal "Robotics & Automation in Manufacturing" November/December 2020
pp 43-48
Apparently, this is related to the submitted manuscript. Please add it to references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents the method for planning the motion of a robot performing the inspection task of varying 3D shapes with the use of ultrasonic sensors. Authors’ used the method of streamlines and ray tracing to simulate ultrasound propagation for coverage path planning of inspection head. It should be emphasized that the problem of Coverage Path Planning (CPP) is of great practical importance due to the increasing use of mobile robots in various areas of human activity.
In the described model, it was assumed that the ultrasonic sensor consists of 64 transducers and has a length of 124 mm. This means that each transducer measures approx. 1.9 mm along the face of the sensor. Is such a sensor technically possible?
In the paper (line 176) it was stated that the sensor length was 124 mm, while in the further part of the paper (line 271) it was stated that the phased array sensor has a width of 114 mm. The authors are asked to explain this difference.
The authors did not mention the important aspect of data processing time in the CPP process. No information has been provided as to whether the proposed method is classified as off-line or on-line method.
The authors are asked to point out the shortcomings and limitations of the proposed method, e.g. in the case of 3D inspections of complex shapes, when the ultrasonic method is of limited use.
The question of the limitations of the method should also take into account the technical possibilities of making heads composed of many ultrasonic transducers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed all the comments I made in the first review.
My suggestions have been attended in the revised version
